Arminianism, Calvinism, or Universal Restoration?

[Patrick1966]

Was my post too harsh?

Not really. I read a LOT of posts in this community that are MUCH more inflammatory toward fellow Christians than what you wrote. I appreciate your perspective, by the way.

 

[Wrangler]

What does the sovereign want then? Loyalty is not enough?
How do you spell tyrant?

How is that a hate filled response

If you cannot discernt he contempt in the post, so be it. HINT: The unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God. Implying that God asks too much of us might qualify. Calling God a tyrant might qualify as it surely is pejorative.

Someone who was grounded in loving God as the center of every fiber of their being would not ask such questions.

you immediately confirm it is an exact reflection of your position

Did I? My intent was to put the poster on the defense and not suppose God needs to defend his sovereignty in terms the poster prefers.

Consider UR under the weight of claims we are reflexively taught to oppose.

You're a <INSERT INSULT HERE, e.g., racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe, etc>. Yes, what of it?​

 

[Patrick1966]

An extremely hate-filled, ego-centric response! Yes, God is a tyrant. It is his way or the highway.

I think our brother was using a little sarcasm to make a point about God. I believe most English translations have been corrupted to misrepresent God as an unforgiving, vengeful, tyrant, that tortures people for eternity for simply not believing in him, etc. Let's remember - God is love.

1 John 4:7-21 esv

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot[a] love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

 

[Chadrho]

Calling God a tyrant might qualify as it surely is pejorative

But he is not calling God a tyrant nor does he believe God is one. He is saying a particular conception of God (ECT) makes God a tyrant.

Someone who was grounded in loving God as the center of every fiber of their being would not ask such questions.

Sure they would if a particular conception is not fitting to honor God. To use your example, if someone called your friend a racist and you understood your friend to absolutely not be one, would you call that claim into question?

Did I? My intent was to put the poster on the defense and not suppose God needs to defend his sovereignty in terms the poster prefers.

That's fair, but as a reader I can't see your intent but only what you stated, which is that God, in fact, is a tyrant. I suspect, correct me if I'm wrong, that you hold the sovereignty of the divine will as primary. I would agree but would add that the sovereignty of the divine will is wholly commensurate with the divine nature, which is love. And love always seeks the good of the beloved. As I stated in my initial response to you.

Trust me in saying I understand your position because it was much like my own, at one point. I don't intend to frustrate you or offend, only to clarify.

 

[Patrick1966]

Sometimes our own rhetorical way of communicating with others gets in the way of our message. I too am at times guilty of doing so.

 

[Patrick1966]

ohn 12:32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

1 Timothy 4:10 esv
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

2 Samuel 14:14, ESV: We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast.

If people are damned forever to "Hell", then the three verses I shared here are FALSE...and there is a plethora of similar verses.

 

[marks]

Discuss!

John 3:5-7 KJV
5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:18 KJV
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV
27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

You must be born again, believing in Jesus. If you do not, you are already condemned, and when you die, you will be judged.

Much love!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

what if it is non of the above??

 

[Wrangler]

I think our brother was using a little sarcasm to make a point about God. I believe most English translations have been corrupted to misrepresent God as an unforgiving, vengeful, tyrant, that tortures people for eternity for simply not believing in him, etc. Let's remember - God is love.

You bring up an interesting debate tactic. Do you accept the terms of the other person (tyrant) or do you introduce the full spectrum of appropriate terms and senses of words, e.g., love and tyrant? (One could argue that God, being the lawmaker, is not possible for him to act outside his own law. But often these digressions from the main point lose the primary thrust without benefit).

I don't think @St. SteVen was using sarcasm but he can clarify. I took what he wrote at face value.

What does the sovereign want then? Loyalty is not enough?
How do you spell tyrant?

What he wrote seemed clear enough to me - if God wants more than loyalty, then he is a tyrant. We'll see.

 

[Chadrho]

what if it is non of the above??

I think that's a possibility. How do you understand the divine will, power, and love in relation to the salvation of humanity that would be distinct from those three possibilities?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I think that's a possibility. How do you understand the divine will, power, and love in relation to the salvation of humanity that would be distinct from those three possibilities?

well I believe it is neiter way..

Divine will. It is the will of the father that whoever sees and believes.. John 6
Love. For God so loved the world that whoever....
power. God is able to save to the upmost those who believe..

 

[Chadrho]

well I believe it is neiter way..

Divine will. It is the will of the father that whoever sees and believes.. John 6
Love. For God so loved the world that whoever....
power. God is able to save to the upmost those who believe..

Okay, not to be contentious but to make an observation, that looks like the Arminian position.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Okay, not to be contentious but to make an observation, that looks like the Arminian position.

Nope

I believe in eternal security.. Arminians do not

 

[GRACE ambassador]

I don't think @St. SteVen was using sarcasm but he can clarify. I took what he wrote at face value.

Interesting, men take men "at face value," But, if I DARE "take God's Word Of Truth,"
the same way, all of a sudden I am an "idolator"?

 

[Wrangler]

Interesting, men take men "at face value," But, if I DARE "take God's Word Of Truth,"
the same way, all of a sudden I am an "idolator"?

Do drug addicts IDOLIZE their next fix?

 

[Enoch111]

What does the sovereign want then? Loyalty is not enough? How do you spell tyrant?

Just more FOOLISH speculation, nonsense, and philosophy on this thread.

 

[St. SteVen]

An extremely hate-filled, ego-centric response!

No need for me to finish reading a post that begins this way. Sorry.

 

[Wrangler]

Just more FOOLISH speculation, nonsense, and philosophy on this thread.

We need to meet people where they are, what they know.

 

[St. SteVen]

That escaping tyranny is an impossibility of the human condition.

So, if I infer that you are calling God a tyrant, you write: "An extremely hate-filled, ego-centric response!"
And then you come back with this?

He also wants us to have a relationship with him that is loving.

I agree with this statement. But it is in conflict with your tyrannical view of God. (as stated above)
No one REALLY loves a tyrant. They can only fear them. (in loathing)

 

[St. SteVen]

... escaping tyranny is an impossibility of the human condition.

First you write this.

Calling God a tyrant might qualify as it surely is pejorative.

And then you write this.